Service package details

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so this is a lower bar. The description still adds real value beyond them: it enumerates the fields returned (price, delivery time, inclusions, requirements, add-ons), which matters because there is no output schema, and it discloses that prices are denominated in Toman.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The payload (what the tool returns) is front-loaded, and the second sentence handles sequencing and units. Neither sentence is redundant with the other.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with full annotations and full schema coverage, this is complete: the agent knows what it fetches, when to call it, what it gets back, and the currency unit. No output schema is needed because the returned fields are enumerated in prose.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents itself as 'Package id from pn_services.' The description adds no format, range, or provenance detail beyond that. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence names a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (one Ponisha service package), and enumerates exactly what is covered: price, delivery time, inclusions, requirements, paid add-ons. The singular 'one' plus the sibling reference to pn_services makes it distinguishable from the list-level sibling without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use after pn_services to compare what a fixed-price offer really delivers' gives an explicit sequencing rule and names the correct prior tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., list-only overview) or any prerequisite for a valid service_id beyond the schema, so not a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.